H& 111 
.R7C7 




7 C7 

py 1 



he Dismissal of 
'rofessor R.oss 



REPORT OF 

coMMirreB of economists 



Report of the Committee of Economists on the 
Dismissal of Professor Ross from Le/aiid 
Stanford Junior University K^ 



The committee appointed at the meeting of the 
economists in Detroit, December 28, 1900, to enquire 
into the causes of the dismissal of Professor Ross from 
Leland Stanford University, have earnestly endeavored 
to learn the facts of the case. In addition to a careful 
examination of the statements made in the newspapers, 
we have asked Professor Jordan for a full and frank 
statement of the causes which led to Professor Ross's 
removal, and have obtained the replies printed in the 
appendix, in which Professor Jordan declines to give 
specific information in regard to them. We have also 
in our possession copies of letters bearing upon this 
case from various persons, including letters from Pro- 
fessor Ross, as well as from President Jordan, not only 
to Professor Ross, but also to others. 

The following facts are, we believe, undisputed : 
It is customary for professors in the Leland Stan- 
ford University to be reappointed early in May of each 
year. Professor Ross failed to receive his annual reap- 
pointment early in May, 1900. He was, however, reap- 
pointed on June 2. On June 5, he handed to President 
Jordan his resignation as follows : 

"Dear Dr. Jordan: — I was sorry to learn from you a 
fortnight ago that Mrs. Stanford does not approve of me 
as an economist, and does not want me to remain here. 
It was a pleasure, however, to learn at the same time of 
the unqualified terms in which you had expressed to her 
your opinion of my work and your complete confidence 
in me as a teacher, a scientist and a man. 

While I appreciate the steadfast support you have 
given me, I am unwilling to become a cause of worry 
to Mrs. Stanford or of embarrassment to you. I, there- 
fore, beg leave to offer my resignation as professor of 
sociology, the same to take effect at the close of the aca- 
demic year, 1900-1901." 



L 



2 H"B\V^ 

This resignation was not acted on until November 
12, when it was accepted by President Jordan in the fol- 
lowing letter : 

"I have waited till now in the hope that circumstances 
might arise which would lead you to a reconsideraion. As 
this has not been the case, I, therefore, with great re- 
luctance, accept your resignation, to take effect at your 
own convenience. In doing so I wish to express once 
more the high esteem in which your work, as a student and 
a teacher, as well as your character as a man, is held by 
all your colleagues." 

On November 14, Professor Ross authorized the pub- 
lication in the newspapers of a statement setting forth 
the causes of his resignation and its acceptance, attribut- 
ing it to a dissatisfaction felt by Mrs. Stanford with his 
expressions of opinion on questions of public policy, par- 
ticu'arly coolie immigration and municipal owner- 
ship of public service corporations. On the following 
day, President Jordan wrote Professor Ross to the ef- 
fect that, in view of his published statement, it was de- 
sirable that his connection with the University should 
terminate immediately. 

The evidence which we have been able to obtain in- 
dicates clearly also the following facts : 

(i) The causes which led to the dismissal of Pro- 
fessor Ross existed in May, 1900. 

(2) Although the dismissal of Professor Ross 
may have been occasioned by his published statement of 
November 14, his resignation was practically forced by 
the wish of Mrs. Stanford. This fact is distinctly stated 
in the report of the Alumni Committee of Investigation, 
which report apparently has the full endorsement of the 
University authorities. 

(3) Mrs. Stanford's wishes in the matter were ex- 
pressed as early as May, 1900. 

(4) The delay in the acceptance of Professor 
•Rtjsslginejigngtioniivks 'due to an effc^o^^the part of 



9, 






/S/p*Ol 



President Jordan to overcome Mrs. Stanford's objec- 
tions. 

The question in regard to which \\^ have been called 
upon to express an opinion is : What were the reasons 
which led Mrs. Stanford to force Professor Ross's resig- 
nation ? 

Two classes of reasons have been alleged : 

(ij Dissatisfaction on the part of Mrs. Stanford 
with Professor Ross's expressions of opinion on ques- 
tions of economic policy, notably in regard to the free 
coinage of silver in the campaign of 1896, and more re- 
cently in regard to coolie immigration and municipal 
monopolies. 

(2) It has been asserted or suggested that Pro- 
fessor Ross had made statements before his classes re- 
flecting upon Senator Stanford, that he had shown him- 
self selfish and lacking in loyalty to the University, that 
he was erratic and frequently overstepped the bounds of 
academic propriety in the manner of giving expression 
to his opinions, that his publication of November 14th 
was a violation of confidence, and that there are facts 
which, if disclosed, would reflect upon his personal char- 
acter. 

While it is, of course, impossible for us definitely to 
determine what facts, or reports of supposed facts, may 
have weighed with Mrs. Stanford, the evidence in the 
possession of the committee seems to justify the following 
conclusions : 

(i) There is no evidence to show that Professor 
Ross gave occasion for his dismissal by any defect in 
moral character. On the contrary, President Jordan 
states in his letter of February 7 to the committee : "No 
ground exists for any interpretation of his dismissal re- 
flecting on his private character." 

(2) There is no evidence to show that Professor 
Ross gave occasion for his dismissal by incompetence. 



On the contrary, President Jordan stated in a letter of 
May, 1900, that he was "a careful thinker and a patient 
investigator," "a constant source of strength" to the 
University and "one of the best teachers, always just, 
moderate and fair." 

(3) There is no evidence to show that Professor 
Ross gave occasion for his dismissal by any unfaithful- 
ness in the discharge of his duties. On the contrary, 
President Jordan stated in a letter of May, 1900, that 
''he has been most loyal, accepting extra work and all 
kinds of embarrassments without a word of complaint," 
and that he was "a wise, learned and noble man, one 
of the most loyal and devoted of all the band" at the 
University. 

(4) There is no evidence to show that in his pub- 
lished statement of November 14 Professor Ross vio- 
lated any confidence reposed in him. On the contrary, 
in a letter of December 24, President Jordan states : "I 
wish after conversation with Dr. Ross to withdraw any- 
thing I may have said implying that he had knowingly 
used confidential material, or in any other way violated 
personal proprieties in making his statement." 

(5) Concerning the point that Professor Ross gave 
occasion for his dismissal by remarks derogatory to Sen- 
ator Stanford, your committee finds in a statement by 
Mr. C. F. Lumniis, in The Land of Sunshine, dated 
Christmas, 1900, the following passage: 

"The precise words Professor Ross may have used I 
do not know, but I do know that he has stated in his 
classes in Stanford many things which his students under- 
stood to be reflections on Senator Stanford, and I know, 
also, that Mrs. Stanford firmly believes that he did slur 
her husband's memory." 

In The Independent of February 7. 1901, Mr. Lum- 
mis repeats this charge, quoting Mrs. Stanford's reasons 
for his dismissal ; "* * * He has called my husband 
a thief." 



The committee also finds that President Jordan in a 
letter of November i6, 1900, states : 

"]\Ir. Keesling informs me that he and others of the 
alumni have heard you in your classes condemn the means 
by which Mr. Stanford became rich in such a way as to 
make it clearly a personal reference, and that some time 
last year Mrs. Stanford was told this by a prominent 
alumnus, Mr. Crothers, if I understood correctly." 

In a letter of the next day, however. President Jor- 
dan retracts this by saying: "Mr. Crothers tells me that 
he has never mentioned the matter in question to Mrs. 
Stanford. I was not sure that I understood my inform- 
ant to say so." 

Professor Ross, moreover, at the time, unqualifiedly 
denied all such charges, and insisted that statements to 
this effect were "a thorough-paced falsehood and a dis- 
ingenuous attempt to befog the real issue." In another 
place he says : "The charge from any quarter that I 
have ever made remarks derogatory to the character of 
Senator Stanford is false — absolutely without founda- 
tion." In a subsequent letter he states: "I have never 
referred in a derogatory way to Senator Stanford, nor 
have I reflected upon the manner in which he accumulat- 
ed his fortune. Both my sincere respect for the Senator 
and my sense of the proprieties of my position forbade 
anything of the kind." 

Moreover, that this charge could not have been a 
determining catise in President Jordan's acceptance of 
Professor Ross's resignation, is shown by the fact that 
in a letter of November 16, two days after his dismissal, 
President Jordan says, in reference to these charges : 
"I never heard anything of the sort before." 

(6) There is no evidence to show that in the opm- 
inn of the President of the University, Professor Ross, 
in his utterances on the silver question, on coolie immi- 
gration, or on municipal ownership, overstepped the 
limits of professorial propriety. On the contrary. Presi- 
dent Jordan stated in May. 1900, that his remarks on 



coolie immigtation and on municipal ownership were in 
accord with the drift of public sentiment on those sulv 
jects, and that even on the silver question "he never 
stepped outside of the recognized rights of a professor." 

(7) There is evidence to show: 

(a) That Mrs. Stanford's objections to Pro- 
fessor Ross were due, in part at all events, to his 
former attitude on the silver question, and to his 
utterances on coolie immigration and on munic- 
ipal ownership ; and 

(b) That while the dissatisfaction of Mrs. 
Stanford due to his former attitude on the silver 
question antedated his utterances on coolie immi- 
gration and municipal ownership, her dissatisfac- 
tion was greatly increased by these utterances. 

As to (a). This is shown by the fact that President 
Jordan at first attempted to deter Mrs. Stanford from 
taking any action for such reasons, stating in a letter oi 
May, 1900: "I feel sure that if his critics would come 
forth and make their complaints to me in manly fashion 
I could convince any of them that they have no real 
ground for complaint." President Jordan, moreover, in- 
liinated that to dismiss him for such reasons would be hn- 
proper in the extreme, for "no graver charge can be made 
against a University than that it denies its professors 
freedom of speech." 

As to (b). This is shown by the fact that not until 
immediately after delivery of the coolie immigration 
speech did Mrs. Stanford force Professor Ross's resigna- 
tion, as well as by the fact that in a letter of June, kioo, 
President Jordan stated: "The matter of immigraiion 
she (Mrs. Stanford) takes most seriously." 

In the same letter, while Mrs. Stanford's objecti(Mi is 
declared to be due to the fact that the reputation of the 
University for serious conservatism is impaired by the 
hasty acceptance of social and political fads, it is added, 
that these "local criticisms" which weighed with Mrs. 



Stanford "unfortunately are based on chance matters and 
obiter dicta, not at all upon your serious work." 

We have liOt deemed it wise to publish in full the 
letters upon which we have based our conclusions, but we 
stand reads' to publish them if such a course is necessary 
to establish the truth in this matter. 

We are aware that owing to the failure of President 
Jordan to give definite replies to all our questions, there 
may be important facts with which we are unacquainted. 
On the other hand, we cannot but feel that a refusal to 
furnish specific information in a case of such importance 
— in which it is charged that the freedom of speech is at 
stake — is itself a fact of significance, which, to say the 
least, is much to be regretted. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN. Professor of Political 
Economy and Finance, Columbia University. 

HENRY W. FARNAM. Professor of Political Econ- 
omy, Yale University. 

HENRY B. GARDNER. Professor of Political Econ- 
omy, Brown l"''niversity. 

February 20, looi. 



The undersigned have examined the evidence sub- 
mitted by the above committee, and beheve that it justi- 
fies the conclusions which they have drawn : 

Horace White, Editor of the Evening Post, New York. 

John B. Clark, Columbia University. 

Henry C. Adams, University of Michigan. 

Frank W. Taussig, Harvard University. 

Richard T. Ely, University of Wisconsin. 

Simon N. Patten, University of Pennsylvania. 

Richmond Mayo-Smith, Columbia University. 

John C. Schwab, Yale University. 

Sidney Spier wood, Johns Hopkins University. 

Franklin H. Giddings, Columbia University. 

William J. Ashley, Harvard University. 

Charles H. Hull, Cornell University. 

Davis R. Dewey, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

Henry C. Emery, Yale University. 

Henry R. Seager, University of Pennsylvania. 



APPENDIX. 



December 30, 1900. 

President Jordan^ Leland Stanford Junior University, 
Palo Alto, Cal. : 

Dear Sir : — In behalf of a considerable number of 
economists, recently assembled in Detroit and much in- 
terested in the resignation of Professor Ross from the 
Leland Stanford University, we venture to address you 
on the subject. We understand -from the public prints as 
well as from other sources, that Professor Ross was 
asked to sever his connection with the University owing 
to the loss of confidence in him by Mrs. Stanford, and 
that this loss of confidence was due primarily to the opin- 
ions expressed by him in a lecture on the subject of coolie 
immigration as well as to incidental remarks on the prob- 
lem of municipal ownership. 

May we inquire whether, as it has been alleged in 
some of the Eastern journals, there are any other reasons 
than those mentioned for the resignation of Professor 
Ross, and may we hope that, if such other reasons exist, 
you may be disposed to communicate them to us ? Many 
university men have been led to believe that in this case 
the legitimate freedom of thought without which no 
progress in science is possible has been discouraged. As 
this is a matter which concerns not a single university, 
but the interests of scholarship all over the country, we 
believe that we are not overstepping the bounds of pro- 
priety in asking information which will enable univer- 
sity teachers to form a just opinion on the merits of the 
case. 



lO 

We desire to add that Dr. Ross is neither the instiga- 
tor of this letter nor aware of its contents. 

Very truly yours, 

Edwin R. A. Seligman, 

Columbia University. 

Henry W. Farnam^ 

Yale University. 

Henry B. Gardner, 

Brown University. 



Leland Stanford Junior University, 

Stanford University, Cal., Jan. 7, 1901. 

Prof. Edwin R. A. Seligman, Columbia University, 
New York City. 

My Dear Sir: — In response to your kind letter of 
December 30th, permit me to say that in view of the im- 
portance of the matter I have referred the contents of 
your letter to a committee of three of our professors, 
Vice-President J. C. Branner, Dr. J. M. Stillman and Dr. 
C. H. Gilbert. They are in possession of the facts and 
are at liberty to answer any questions which your com- 
mittee may desire to ask. For reasons which will readily 
appear it has not been deemed advisable for us to state 
the reasons why Dr. Ross was dismissed. His statement 
to the press does not assign any of the true reasons. 

Very truly yours, 

David Jordan, 

President. 



II 

Leland Stanford Junior University, 

Jan. 14, 1901. 

Professor Edwin R. A. Seligman. 
Professor Henry W. Farnam. 
Professor Henry B. Gardner. 

Dear Sirs : — 

Your letter of December 30th addressed to Presi- 
dent Jordan has been referred by him to us for reply. 

In your letter you say : "We understand from the 
public prints as well as from other sources that Professor 
Ross was asked to sever his connection with the Univer- 
sity owing to loss of confidence in him by Mrs. Stanford, 
and that this loss of confidence was due primarily to the 
opinions expressed by him in a lecture on the subject of 
coolie immigration as well as to incidental remarks on the 
problem of municipal ownership." 

In reply we beg to say that the dissatisfaction of the 
University management with Professor Ross antedated 
his utterances on the topics you refer to. His removal 
was not due primarily to what he published, said or 
thought in regard to coolie immigration or in regard to 
municipal ownership. 

We can assure you furthermore that in our opinion 
his removal cannot be interpreted as an interference with 
freedom of speech or thought within the proper and rea- 
sonable meaning of that expression. 

These statements are made with a full knowledge of 
the facts of the case. 

Very truly yours. 



J. C. Branner, 
J. M. Stillman, 
C. H. Gilbert. 



12 



January 30, 1901. 

President Jordan, 

Leland Stanford University, 
Palo Alto, California : 

Dear Sir : — 

We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 
January 7th, as well as the letter of your committee of 
three, of January 14th. 

You state in your letter that you are ready to answer 
all questions. May we venture to put the following : 

I. — In the committee's letter of January 14th, it is 
stated that the "dissatisfaction of the University Manage- 
ment with Professor Ross antedated his utterances on the 
topics you refer to." How can this dissatisfaction of the 
University management be made to agree with the state- 
ment of the President, speaking for himself and the facul- 
ty, and quoted in the public prints of November 14th as 
follows : — 

a. — Extract from a letter from Professor Ross to Presi- 
dent Jordan : "It was a pleasure, however, to learn from 
you of the unqualified terms in which you have ex- 
pressed to her (Mrs. Stanford) your high opinion of 
my work and your complete confidence in me as a teach- 
er, a scientist, and a man." 

b. — Quotation from a letter from President Jordan to Pro- 
fessor Ross : "I wish to express once more the high 
esteem in which your work as a student and a teacher, 
as well as your character as a man. is held by your col- 
leagues." 

2. — In 5^our letter of January 7th, you say — "His 
(Professor Ross's) statement to the press does not assign 
any of the true reasons." If the speeches on coolie immi- 
gration and municipal ownership did not constitute any 
of the reasons for his dismissal, why was the dissatisfac- 
tion, which in your judgment antedated these speeches, 
not manifested until immediately after the delivery of the 
same? Why was the reappointment so dubious and tardy 



13 

while Professor Ross had no intimation of his possible 
non-appointment till May i8? 

3. — In saying that Professor Ross does not assign 
any of the true reasons for his dismissal, do we under- 
stand you to deny the truth of Professor Ross's pub- 
lished statement, containing quotations from your re- 
marks to him : 

a. — That "he (Dr. Jordan) had heard from her (Mrs. 
Stanford) just after my address on cooHe immigra- 
tion." 

b. — That "quite unexpectedly to him (President Jordan) 
Mrs. Stanford had shown herself greatly displeased with 
me (Professor Ross)." 

c. — That "he (President Jordan) was profoundly dis- 
tressed at the idea of dismissing a scientist for utter- 
ances within the scientist's own field." 

d. — That "he (President Jordan) made earnest representa- 
tions to Mrs. Stanford." 

4. — What are the real reasons for the dismissal of 
Dr. Ross? In your letter of January 7th, you say : "For 
reasons which will readily appear, it has not been deemed 
advisable for us to state the reasons why Dr. Ross was 
dismissed." Will you pardon us for saying that we fail 
readily to recognize any such reasons? If the reasons 
are that you fear to injure the personal reputation of Pro- 
fessor Ross, may we venture to suggest that nothing that 
you could do would be more calculated to injure Dr. Ross 
than the insinuation that there are some secret reasons 
which cannot be divulged. It is just because some such 
innuendoes have been printed in the papers that our com- 
mittee addressed itself to you, in order to ascertain the 
true state of aflfairs. 

While we regret to prolong this correspondence, you 
will readily see that unless we can give the members of 
the American Economic Association some explicit rea- 
sons for Professor Ross's dismissal other than those as- 
signed by him, they will naturally adhere to the opinion 



14 

based apon the statements first made in the pubHc press. 
A mere denial of the truth of the statements made by him 
will not be apt to satisfy gentlemen who are not willing 
to believe that any of the parties concerned in the ques- 
tion would intentionally make a false statement, and facts 
alone will enable them to reconcile assertions that would 
otherwise seem contradictory. It is for that reason that 
we venture again to express the hope tliat a more explicit 
answer may be given to our questions. 

Very truly yours, 

Edwin R. A. Seligman, 
Henry W. Farnam, 
Henry B. Gardner. 



Leland Stanford University, Cal., 

Feb. 7, 1901. 
Professors 

Edwin R. A. SeligmaNj 
Henry W. Farnam, 
Henry B. Gardner. 

Gentlemen : — 

Your letter of January 30th is at hand asking further 
information as to the reasons for the dismissal of Pro- 
fessor Ross. When I expressed my willingness to an- 
swer further questions I did not mean to indicate that I 
would enter into any circumstantial description of events 
leading to or following from Professor Ross's dismissal. 
Nor do I consider it expedient or proper to go into a dis- 
cussion of extracts from my letters or conversations or 
of my statements or alleged statements, or those of others, 
as published in the newspapers. There are, however, cer- 
tain assurances which it is within the privilege of the pub- 
lic to ask, and which it is my desire to furnish, that the 



IS 

public may be assisted in forming a judgment as to the 
position of the University upon important questions. It 
seems to me that I shall answer these questions best by 
certain plain statements which involve the important facts 
concerning the University. It will be necessary for you 
to assume my knowledge of all the facts, also that the in- 
terpretation herewith presented is authoritative from the 
University standpoint. 

First : Professor Ross was not dismissed on account 
of his views on Oriental immigration nor on account of 
his opinions on any economic question. 

Second : Professor Ross was dismissed because in 
the judgment of the University authorities he was not the 
proper man for the place he held. The responsibiHty for 
the correctness of this judgment belongs to the Univer- 
sity authorities and to them alone. 

Third : No ground exists for any interpretation of 
his dimissal reflecting on his private character, of which 
your letter seems to imply a fear. 

Fourth : The judgment that Professor Ross was not 
the proper man for the place he held is not incompatible 
with my appreciation of many good qualities he pos- 
sesses, nor with my wishes or efforts at any time to fur- 
ther his prospects. I have been neither ignorant of his 
professional shortcomings nor inappreciative of his good 
qualities. Of such appreciation Professor Ross has him- 
self adduced several expressions from my letters. 

In the hope that you may find in the above a sub- 
stantial answer to the questions involved in your inquiries, 
I remain, 

Very truly yours, 

David L. Jordan. 






MAR 25 1901 



